DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/09/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: "a first region having a first Tg, and a second region having a second Tg" in lines 1-2 should read "a first region having a first . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "comprises a " in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The term “high” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specifically, it is unclear what heat capacity can be considered a high heat capacity. Paragraph 0071 of the published application merely notes using “a sufficiently high heat capacity to control the heating and/or cooling rate of the object ”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 10-11 and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lavernia (US 2023/0045680 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lavernia teaches a method (Figure 2; paragraphs 0006-0007, 0036) comprising:
fabricating an object (110) from at least one curable material using an additive manufacturing process (paragraph 0036, first component may be formed using any technique such as injection molding, 3D printing (i.e., additive manufacturing));
surrounding the object with a packing material, wherein the packing material spatially constrains the object to inhibit deformation of the object (powder in Figure 1A-1B; paragraph 0024, a powder or particle medium 112 having fluid properties (e.g., “powder” or “medium”). The powder 112 may surround the first component 110; 206 in Figure 2; paragraph 0039, the first component may be surrounded with a medium, such as a powder.); and
applying energy to the object while the object is surrounded by the packing material (208 in Figure 2; paragraph 0041, at least one of heat or electricity may be applied to the medium in the chamber), wherein the energy alters at least one material property of the object (paragraph 0042, such combination of heat and isostatic pressure may result in relatively uniform shrinkage and consolidation of the first component).
While Lavernia does not disclose the object has a maximum thickness no greater than 5 mm, Figure 6 appears to show an embodiment wherein the object after consolidation has a thickness less than 5 mm. Further, Lavernia discloses the object being a replacement tooth (Figure 3; paragraph 0051); hence, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art the object has a thickness less than 5 mm prior to consolidation.
Regarding claim 2, Lavernia teaches all the elements of claim 1, but does not disclose the applied energy causes annealing of the object. However, Lavernia discloses the applied energy is directed via controlled pulses (108 in Figure 1; paragraphs 0026, 0028) consistent with pulse annealing.
Regarding claim 3, Lavernia teaches all the elements of claim 1, but does not disclose the applied energy causes post-curing of the object. However, considering the object may be formed via 3D printing, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, the object would inherent continue curing during the application of the applied energy.
Regarding claim 6, Lavernia further discloses the at least one material property comprises one or more of the following: degree of curing of the object, phase, modulus, glass transition temperature (Tg), elongation to break, elongation to yield, strength, or hardness (paragraph 0019, uniform shrinkage and consolidation of shaped components, resulting in a more homogenous microstructure and lower levels of residual stresses (i.e., resulting in higher strength or hardness)).
Regarding claim 10, Lavernia further discloses applying the energy comprises heating the object, and wherein the packing material is configured to transfer heat to the object (paragraph 0008, at least one of the heat or electricity is applied simultaneously to the first component via the medium; paragraph 0039, the powder may operate as a fluid medium to transfer at least one of current, heat, or pressure to the first component).
Regarding claim 11, Lavernia teaches all the elements of claim 10, but does not disclose cooling the object while the object is surrounded by the packing material. However, considering the object is heat to an elevated temperature while surrounded by the packing material (paragraph 0034), it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to have cooled the object (i.e., to at least room temperature) to allow removal and/or handling of the object.
Regarding claim 13, Lavernia further discloses the packing material comprises a plurality of particles (paragraphs 0008, 0024, powder or particle medium).
Regarding claim 14, Lavernia further discloses the packing material comprises a high heat capacity material (paragraph 0039, discloses ceramics or graphite particles).
Regarding claim 15, Lavernia further discloses the packing material comprises one or more of the following: sand, diatomaceous earth, ceramic, or glass (paragraph 0039, discloses ceramics or graphite particles).
Regarding claim 16, Lavernia further discloses the packing material and the object are enclosed within a chamber during the applying of the energy (208 in Figure 2; paragraph 0041, at least one of heat or electricity may be applied to the medium in the chamber).
Regarding claim 17, Lavernia further discloses the object has a first geometry after the additive manufacturing process, and a second geometry after the application of the energy (paragraphs 0037, 0042, the object is consolidated; hence, has a first geometry pre-consolidation and a second geometry after consolidation), but does not disclose a maximum deviation between the first and second geometries is no greater than 200 μm. However, Lavernia discloses the amount of consolidation is controlled/selected (paragraph 0037). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to have controlled the deviation between the first and second geometries based on the desired properties of the object.
Regarding claim 18, Lavernia teaches all the elements of claim 1, but does not disclose the additive manufacturing process comprises stereolithography or digital light processing. However, Lavernia discloses the object may be produced via additive manufacturing (paragraph 0036). Considering there are only a finite number of additive manufacturing processes, one skilled in the art could have utilized stereolithography to produce the object with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to use stereolithography for higher resolution over other 3d printing technologies.
Regarding claim 19, Lavernia teaches all the elements of claim 1, but does not disclose the at least one curable material comprises a polymerizable resin. However, Lavernia discloses the object may be produced via additive manufacturing (paragraph 0036). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a polymerizable resin, since it have held to be within the ordinary skill of worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. One would have been motivated to a polymerizable resin for the purpose of 3D printing the object, as is conventional in the art. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination.
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Illston (US 2014/0034626 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Lavernia teaches all the elements of claim 1, but does not disclose the object is a dental appliance.
Illston teaches a method (Figure 2) comprising: fabricating an object from at least one curable material using an additive manufacturing process 1-3 in Figure 2; claim 1); applying compressive stress to the object with heat (6 in Figure 2; paragraph 0070, as high a pressure as possible with as fast a heat up and cool down). Illston further discloses the object being a dental coping of crown (paragraph 0063). It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to have substituted the object of Illston (i.e., dental appliance) for that of Lavernia and the results of the substitution would have been obvious to one skilled the art. One would have been motivated to use process the dental appliance according the method of Lavernia for the benefits disclosed by Lavernia.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claims 4-5
“wherein the object comprises a first region having a first Tg, and a second region having a second Tg different from the first Tg, and wherein the applied energy causes rearrangement of at least one of the first or second regions within the object.”;
”wherein the object comprises a mobile phase and a rigid phase that are formed from the at least one curable material.”;
“wherein the at least one curable material comprises a first curable material and a second curable material, the additive manufacturing process comprises a first curing process to cure the first curable material, and the energy is applied as part of a second curing process to cure the second curable material.”;
“wherein the at least one curable material comprises a first curable material and the additive manufacturing process comprises a first curing process to cure the first curable material to form a porous structure, the method further comprises infiltrating a second curable material into the porous structure, and the energy is applied as part of a second curing process to cure the second curable material within the porous structure.” and
“ exposing the object to a solvent while the object is surrounded by the packing material to remove residual curable material from the object.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Virak Nguon whose telephone number is (571)272-4196. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday (and alternate Fridays) 7:30-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alison L Hindenlang can be reached at 571-270-7001. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/VIRAK NGUON/Examiner, Art Unit 1741 5/15/2026
Prosecution Insights